On Sun, 17 Jan 1999, M.C. Vernon wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jan 1999, Bruce Sass wrote: > > On Sun, 17 Jan 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > <...> Pine is simpler to use, > > > but it's a pity about the license. > > > > Go on, please. > > It's non-free - you can't distribute modified binaries.
That is where Debian placed the Pine source - who says so? > 'nuff said No. Clearly it is not the case that Debian prohibits the distribution of modified binaries of non-free software, simply because there are lots of non-free source + diffs with binary .debs in the package tree. Granted that Pine's legal.txt[1] does not explicitly give one permission to distribute modified binaries; it also does not explicitly say that one can not; it does however, explicitly request how modifications should be handled, without reference to any particular distribution scheme. (If you are having problems with that last line, then I respectfully suggest you double check the meaning of the word "local"[2]. Well, it is the only bit that I can see as being a potential problem.) It doesn't appear that anybody is restricting the distribution of "modified binaries". later, Bruce [1] ftp://ftp.cac.washington.edu/pine/docs/legal.txt [2] as in "Local modification of this release is permitted..."